A problem with the fake-apollo landings theories

[geni]

So does that negate the HB claim of a TETR-A type satellite mimicing the signals of an Apollo lunar mission?

Wasn't that one in LEO? I think horizen to horizen times would have given it away somewhat.

 

[Obviousman]

Wasn't that one in LEO? I think horizen to horizen times would have given it away somewhat.

That's why I said a "type". Throw it in orbit to simulate a lunar landing mission.

If the ground-based radar / radio telescopes / tracking systems can discriminate between the CSM and the LM, then you can't say it was a TETR-A type satellite.

Of course, we can start saying a remote lander that was capable of collecting all the core tube samples, photographing large rock samples in place, setting up various science experiments, etc, etc. And had a tape recorder inside.

 

[pgwenthold]

I work for NASA.

I get the "Was the Moon Landing for real?" crap all the time from new acquaintences.

It's very tiring. I reason about it this way... If the Moon Landings were impossible, which specific piece of technology was missing? Was it the Saturn V launch vehicle? Space suits? Communications? The LEM? What did we lack to pull it off?

If the answer is nothing, as it is (and I know enough to crush anyone who claims any stage of the project was impossible), then why would we fake it? The fake would be riskier than actually doing it.

The thing I don't understand is why this "myth" is so attractive. As though people want to believe the Apollo Program was a fake. Gee, what a great fantasy.

And how many of those morons believe that wearing a copper magnetic bracelet actually has a physioligical effect and that (pick your random flavor of the month) just developed a free power machine that concentrates zero-point energy?

How many believe that the WTC towers were brought down by super-secret Star Wars death rays?

 

[realitybites]

I work for NASA.

I get the "Was the Moon Landing for real?" crap all the time from new acquaintences.

It's very tiring. I reason about it this way... If the Moon Landings were impossible, which specific piece of technology was missing? Was it the Saturn V launch vehicle? Space suits? Communications? The LEM? What did we lack to pull it off?

If the answer is nothing, as it is (and I know enough to crush anyone who claims any stage of the project was impossible), then why would we fake it? The fake would be riskier than actually doing it.

The thing I don't understand is why this "myth" is so attractive. As though people want to believe the Apollo Program was a fake. Gee, what a great fantasy.

What's interesting about the moon-hoax technology crap is that they're spouted by the same people who believe the US government is neck-deep in super-sekrit hi-tech gizmos that are years ahead of what us "sheeple" think we're capable of.

So which is it?

The government is either really advanced and could easily put men on the moon (as well as destroy buildings with beam weapons), or really primative and couldn't launch a water balloon with a rubber band.

 

[bjb]

And how many of those morons believe that wearing a copper magnetic bracelet actually has a physioligical effect and that (pick your random flavor of the month) just developed a free power machine that concentrates zero-point energy?

How many believe that the WTC towers were brought down by super-secret Star Wars death rays?

Some of them believe in all sorts of nonsense. My brother worked with a engineer who was a young-earth creationist. Another believed that professional wrestling was for real. During the first observance of Martin Luther King day back in the late 80's, there were all sorts of foul racist comments placed on one of the bulletin boards celebrating his assassination. But this is the penalty we pay for putting NASA centers in places like Texas and Alabama.

Personally, I don't know any engineers from NASA, Boeing, etc. who believe in the conspiracy theories. On 9/11 itself, we discussed how the buildings fell and it all made sense to us. No one believe in secret death rays because since we know what it takes to make one and we know the technology does not yet exist. It's sort of like claiming we have secret bases on the moon or Mars. We could do it but the amount of effort required would be very noticable in our open society. We also know it would be very difficult to sell the DoD on a death ray because a cruise missile does the same job for far less money.

I should to add that I make no claims as to the absence of strange beliefs among upper management. The Dilbert cartoons are pretty accurate in this respect.

 

[bjb]

I forgot to mention that I used to work with some ultra-conservative types in the late 80's-early 90's. This was the period when the USSR was collapsing and peace was breaking out and ruining our jobs. One of these guys would put flyers on the bulletin board saying how the USSR was only pretending to fall apart and it was all a plan to fool us into a false sense of security. I would have been amused by these flyers but I knew what these people were in charge of and it was actually quite frightening to know they actually had some sort of authority. One guy was saying how the United States was at war with the USSR but that most people just didn't know it. He was definitely a 'glastnost' conspiracy nut and I would not be surprised if he was a full-on 9/11 denier today.

 

[skepticism]

Has America ever elected a scientist as president? Jimmy Carter claimed to be a nuclear engineer, but he seems to have exaggerated his military resume.

When we did the moon landing, we had leaders who were hack politicians, would they lie to us? Would they ever ask NASA to do something dishonest?

The Mormon Church has had the major contracts for NASA. Low bidder? Russia was perceived as ahead in the "space race." America didn't want to appear behind, so it did a moon landing. It's very plausible that the American politicians were just a little afraid it might fail. So they did 2 moon landings. One was the real one. Another was the fake one to be on TV, where nothing could go wrong. That's a likely scenario.

People died in space. That wasn't what American politicians wanted to see on world wide TV. Russia covered up some of it's failed space ventures. America may have tried to do the same, to the point that it had the televised fake lunar landing, at the same time it did the real lunar landing.

Lunar pictures have this odd shadow problem. The flag shadow goes one way, another shadow goes another way. No one is curious?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Apollo was a fake.

The US Navy landed a captured alien microbus on Mars in 1967. Since then, selected world leaders , some of them supposedly dead, have been living there, sending back pictures they claim are on the moon.

JFK has been President of Mars twelve times.

It was a navigational error in a Martian spacecraft, caused by someone illegally operating a mobile phone, which caused it to hit the twin towers.

Here's proof. All the airlines say you can't use cellphones , because it interferes with the navigational systems. Yet people used cellphones on the planes that hit the WTC and yet the planes still hit the wtc dead on. (Except, they didn't, obviously, because it was a Martian shuttle).

My theory is airlines don't want people using cellphones on planes because it interferes with Martian spacecraft.

Damn, my head hurts, but the pills are great. The pills are grate. The pills... Martha- the pills!!!


(Mr. Sam is as well as can be expected, considering.)

 

[Bell]

You forgot to mention the Nazi lunar base. Where the Nazi's gassed the Selenites.

 

[Alt+F4]

JFK has been President of Mars twelve times.

That's just because they don't use the electoral college on Mars.

 

[Spindrift]

Has America ever elected a scientist as president? Jimmy Carter claimed to be a nuclear engineer, but he seems to have exaggerated his military resume.

When we did the moon landing, we had leaders who were hack politicians, would they lie to us? Would they ever ask NASA to do something dishonest?

The Mormon Church has had the major contracts for NASA. Low bidder? Russia was perceived as ahead in the "space race." America didn't want to appear behind, so it did a moon landing. It's very plausible that the American politicians were just a little afraid it might fail. So they did 2 moon landings. One was the real one. Another was the fake one to be on TV, where nothing could go wrong. That's a likely scenario.

People died in space. That wasn't what American politicians wanted to see on world wide TV. Russia covered up some of it's failed space ventures. America may have tried to do the same, to the point that it had the televised fake lunar landing, at the same time it did the real lunar landing.

Lunar pictures have this odd shadow problem. The flag shadow goes one way, another shadow goes another way. No one is curious?

The Mormon Church? North American and Grumman are/were Mormon companies? And the "low bidder" thing is a joke usually attributed to Gus Grissom. NASA did not pick main contractors because they were low bidder.

And you're right Russia "appeared" ahead, when in fact most of their missions were stunts until the US won the race to the moon.

They only did 2 moon landings? What about the other four landings (14 thru 17)?

No one has ever died in space. It's either been on takeoff (Challenger), re-entry (Columbia and a couple Soviet missions) or on the ground (Apollo 1).

I suggest you go to BadAstronomy.com before you start going on about shadows on the moon.

 

[jhunter1163]

Actually, Bill Dana was the one who came up with the joke about the lunar lander having 1.3 million or so parts, every one made by the lowest bidder.

[/nitpick]

 

[Spindrift]

Actually, Bill Dana was the one who came up with the joke about the lunar lander having 1.3 million or so parts, every one made by the lowest bidder.

[/nitpick]

Never definitively. It's also been attributed to John Glenn.

 

[Dr. Lao]

Aldrin is my hero for the cold cock punch.

Someone should craft a statue commemerating that great moment in reasoned thought.

 

[Ranb]

Jimmy Carter claimed to be a nuclear engineer, but he seems to have exaggerated his military resume.

People died in space.

Lunar pictures have this odd shadow problem. The flag shadow goes one way, another shadow goes another way. No one is curious?

Can you be more specific? What did Carter exagerate about his Naval career?

No astronauts have actually died in space. They died while on the pad, during launch prior to reaching space, or during atmosphere entry.

Can you give us the name/number of an Apollo photo you think is wrong? You do of course understand that uneven ground can make a shadow appear to be in the wrong direction? Do you understand anything about vanishing points in photos?

Ranb

 

[pvt1863]

Can you be more specific? What did Carter exagerate about his Naval career?

Neither Carter's education or his career really qualify him for the title of nuclear engineer. His degree -- in all the locations I've looked -- is simply described as a "bachelor of science" without listing a specific area of study. He then worked as a command officer in the Navy, where he worked with nuclear submarines. As a command officer, he was not in a position to do much actual nuclear engineering work.

Here is another fun fact, though it doesn't affect his status as a nuclear engineer. He pronounces nuclear "new-cu-lar." I always found it odd that people drag Bush over the coals for his pronounciation while staying silent about Carter doing exactly the same thing, even while he is supposed to be a nuclear engineer. Truman also mispronnounced the word, but he could probably be given a pass since he was not a man of science and because the technology was so young at the time.

I am a nuclear engineer, and I can say that every fellow NucE I know (in both academia and industry) resents Carter's use of the term to describe himself.

 

[JimBenArm]

Neither Carter's education or his career really qualify him for the title of nuclear engineer. His degree -- in all the locations I've looked -- is simply described as a "bachelor of science" without listing a specific area of study. He then worked as a command officer in the Navy, where he worked with nuclear submarines. As a command officer, he was not in a position to do much actual nuclear engineering work.

Here is another fun fact, though it doesn't affect his status as a nuclear engineer. He pronounces nuclear "new-cu-lar." I always found it odd that people drag Bush over the coals for his pronounciation while staying silent about Carter doing exactly the same thing, even while he is supposed to be a nuclear engineer. Truman also mispronnounced the word, but he could probably be given a pass since he was not a man of science and because the technology was so young at the time.

I am a nuclear engineer, and I can say that every fellow NucE I know (in both academia and industry) resents Carter's use of the term to describe himself.

I was an enlisted NUKE in the Navy, and I resented his use of that as well. He might have been able to state that if he had served as the Engineering Officer of a ship, but he did not. Even then, it would have been playing semantics with the term. He was no more of a nuclear engineer than I was.

 

[Ranb]

For you guys who served in the nuclear Navy; is qualifiying as an Engineer Officer good enough to say you are a nuclear engineer? While I was in the sub force (MM/ELT 80's, 90's), all of the nuclear officers (that is, all except the supply officer) had to qualify EOOW/EDO, then OOD. They kept up their studying, went to engineer school (basically a study program for the interview at NAVSEA), then if the CO thought they were good enough, they went to their interview in Washington. If they passed, then they were designated as a qualified engineer.

So while they might not have had a degree in engineering, they were considered to be qualified as a nuclear engineer on a submarine propulsion plant. It is more of an appointment or qualification than anything else. Do we agree here? I would think that Carter was filling a position as Engineering Officer on a sub, whether he was qualified or not. If he was good enough, then he was good enough, if not, then, maybe he did embellish his record.

I only had two Engineers I really respected. I was scared of one of them, and saw him tremble in front of the CO a few times. That is how bad it was on the Jacksonville back before shock trials.

Ranb

 

[JimBenArm]

For you guys who served in the nuclear Navy; is qualifiying as an Engineer Officer good enough to say you are a nuclear engineer? While I was in the sub force (MM/ELT 80's, 90's), all of the nuclear officers (that is, all except the supply officer) had to qualify EOOW/EDO, then OOD. They kept up their studying, went to engineer school (basically a study program for the interview at NAVSEA), then if the CO thought they were good enough, they went to their interview in Washington. If they passed, then they were designated as a qualified engineer.

So while they might not have had a degree in engineering, they were considered to be qualified as a nuclear engineer on a submarine propulsion plant. It is more of an appointment or qualification than anything else. Do we agree here? I would think that Carter was filling a position as Engineering Officer on a sub, whether he was qualified or not. If he was good enough, then he was good enough, if not, then, maybe he did embellish his record.

I only had two Engineers I really respected. I was scared of one of them, and saw him tremble in front of the CO a few times. That is how bad it was on the Jacksonville back before shock trials.

Ranb

Maybe I should have made my previous post more clear. He would have been the Engineering Officer of the ship, may have had a degree in engineering, but he would NOT have been a nuclear engineer. He still would not have a degree in nuclear engineering, which is an entirely separate field of study, and an entirely different degree.

I was a nuke from '73 to '87, Chief IC Electrician, if it makes any difference.

 

[sackett]

Dim memories:

In the 70's, the Chinese repeated the hoax story pretty widely in Africa. At that time they were trying to expand their influence in a number of African countries. Their idea was to disparage the West, and America in particular, by spreading a tale that would comfort envious populations in undeveloped parts of the world.

I'm told that the hoax myth has long since entered the folklore of much of sub-Sharan Africa, chiefly, I suppose, because it makes people feel a little bit better about their lot. Odd; and all too human.

What does belief in the moon hoax do for people in the First World? Beats me with a stick.